No . . . you have a problem with projection and attributing the anti-gun stance to the pro-gun stance. You also don't seem to actually
comprehend what a logical fallacy is, especially argumentum ad passiones (argument from emotion). The NRA's stance is not based emotion. It is
based on the fact that the 2nd (as do all other items in the Bill of Rights) restricts the central government from legislating on certain aspects,
which are considered rights. If the states want to pass restrictions, they have that ability, but the feds do not. The fact that there are already
restrictions is meaningless to further restrictions, as it is up to the SCOTUS to rule constitutionality.

The emotion is coming from the anti-gun lobby because they can't base any prohibition on logic. "Safety", "save the life of just one child",
"weapon of war", "only use is to kill", "what is the need" are arguments from emotion and logical fallacies.

And you are mistaken on a lot of the current "restrictions". Gatling guns, for instance, are legal with a Class III license and paying the $200/yr
tax. You seem to think if people have these they will use them to kill . . . however, people do have them and none are used in crimes. It is your
projection of fear of these items that make them scary and "worth restricting". Until someone actually murders someone . . . no crimes have been
commited. I'm not afraid of any gun or whether they are "mounted to cars", so I could care less. If someone has one mounted, they still have to
commit the crime of murder, which is illegal and could be done with any gun. The actual one employed is meaningless. It is the person's actions
that make any machine/tool an instrument of killing and your inability (argument from ignorance) to comprehend their utility beyond such is
meaningless as well.

And if we are not talking about the AR-15 . . . what is your point? That is the item currently discussed when prohibition is suggested. What further
restrictions are needed then?

I haven't fallen for any rhetoric. Once again you are employing projection psychology. If something is legal (not prohibited) many people will die
or if they are many people won't. If you owned a nuke, would you use it right now? If not, your arguement, once again, is complete bunk and you are
projecting you fears upon inanimate objects. Many countries have nukes . . . the US is the only country to use one and that was over 50 years ago.
So, hyperbole and fallacies aside, your argument is meaninless and not based in logic.

Also, no reading comprehension issues. You said:

I believe there are currently guns being sold that have no use other than kill massive amounts
of people.

Which guns exactly? How often are these feared guns used in crimes? What facts do you have to back up that don't come from
media/gov lies and your fearful opinions? And yet, the majority (over 90%) of gun deaths come by way of handguns. So, where is your fear coming
from? If you are not talking about prohibition of all guns . . . there is no logic or reason to your statements and there would be no impact in
restricting any gun, outside of handguns.

I also don't fear the any one having any weapon, including nukes, as there are plenty of weapons in the world and yet the homicide (by firearm) rate
has been steadily dropping since the 90's and are currently at a 15yr low. All of this despite ownership being up over 200%, over the same 15yr
period. Logic and reason rely on facts and data . . . there is nothing in your agruments to back you position besides fearful what ifs and opinion.
So, yes . . . all logical fallacies on your part and a continual moving of the goal posts. Legislation should not come from emotion and opinion, it
should be based on reason and legitmate facts. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the rights of an indivdual cannot be infringed based on the
possiblity of future events/crimes, so again . . . what other than fear, emotion, and opinion do you have? It's circular reasoning through and
through. As I base my views on factual data and living in reality . . . there is no emotion clouding me. I do not support lobby groups like the NRA,
so I don't get my rhetoric from them. Here I'll give you a couple of places where I get my views on this agenda from: FBI Uniform Crime NICSGuns and Mental IllnessAssault WeaponsReasonVPC

Funny though, I've never heard a story about a tank collector going crazy and murdering people. There was
This Guy who stole a tank from a National Guard armory. There was also the guy who
spent 1.5 YEARS turning a bulldozer into a tank. Yeah, some people have skills that allow them to MAKE things. Crazy, I know.

Making guns harder to obtain might prevent a few murders, but overall it would only have negative consequences. The feds sell semi-autos to Mexican
drug cartels and then you think U.S. citizens shouldn't be allowed to have the same weapons? You think foreign drug cartels should have more rights
than US? I can't say what I'd really like to say to you.

All of these recent "mass" shootings were PLANNED. If a person snaps from being on too many big pharma medications, maybe it would be good if they
can't go buy a semi-auto. Or...maybe they'll spend months or years planning something that doesn't involve harder to access weapons. If guns were
banned outright, the psychos who want to harm a lot of people could just look up how to make homemade chemical weapons, or make a spud-gun that shoots
nails. You can't stop it by banning anything. Isn't it illegal to kill people? We're talking about people who don't care because they want to die
themselves.

Instead of focusing on how to secure schools, you people want to focus on the weapon used. That's ridiculous! We can ban all guns and some psycho
could walk into an elementary school with molotov cocktails. How about focusing on the important issues instead of the distractions? How does banning
ANY weapon prevent someone from leaking natural gas into a buildings ventilation system? Hrm?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.